Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Chhotu on 29 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1848
1 MA-322-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 322 of 2010
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Versus
CHHOTU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Udainiya - Government Advocate for the appellants/State.
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain - Advocate for respondent No.1/claimant.
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for respondent No.2/driver.
ORDER
Both the parties are heard finally.
2. Appellants have preferred this miscellaneous appeal under Section
173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "M.V. Act") against the impugned
award dated 15.7.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri
in Claim Case No.330/2008, whereby compensation of Rs.47,512/- with
interest of 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of respondent
No.1/claimant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.4.2008 when seven years old
boy Chhotu was coming towards his residence near A.B. Road, at that time,
respondent No.2 Ramesh Chandra while driving jeep bearing registration
No.MP02-3728 in rash and negligent manner at a very high speed hit
Chhotu, as a result of which, Chhotu got fracture on his left leg and also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1848
2 MA-322-2010
sustained injuries on other parts of his body. Chhotu was brought to M.M.
Hospital, Shivpuri by Ramesh Chandra where he has been given treatment.
FIR of the accident was registered. Respondent No.1/Claimant preferred a
claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act stating that respondent No.2 in
rash and negligent manner had driven the aforesaid offending vehicle and hit
Chhotu due to which, he sustained fracture on his left leg and also sustained
severe injuries which turned into permanent disability and due to accident, he
could not study. Claimant claimed for compensation amount of Rs.6,30,000/-
along with interest against State being owner and respondent No.2 being
driver of offending vehicle.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their reply before the Claims
Tribunal and denied the aforesaid accident by stating that accident was not
caused by respondent No.2. False FIR had been lodged against respondent
No.2 after lapse of two and half months without any plausible explanation.
There is no eyewitness of the incident. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of
claim petition.
5. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned below Tribunal has
framed as many as five issues and after recording the evidence of the parties
and documents proved on record, allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded total compensation of Rs.47,512/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization in
favour of the claimant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellants have
preferred this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the State contended that Vikki Jatav (AW-2) is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1848
3 MA-322-2010
neighborer of claimant Chhotu and also belongs to his caste, hence he is
related and interested witness, therefore, his evidence cannot be reliable. FIR
has been lodged after two and half months without any plausible explanation.
No such accident has been caused by respondent No.2 by the aforesaid
Government Vehicle. Learned Claims Tribunal has failed to consider all
these aforesaid aspects. Respondent No.2 was not identified by the claimant
and other witnesses and has been acquitted by the Criminal Court after the
full trial for the aforesaid offence. Hence, it is prayed that appeal be allowed
and the impugned award be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant opposed
the appeal and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned award
passed by below Tribunal and also made humble request for enhancement of
compensation amount.
8. Respondent No.2 has also opposed the appeal by submitting that
awarded amount has been wrongly deducted from his salary and retiral dues
by the appellant. Although no such accident has been committed by him.
Now he has been retired from service, Hence, he prayed that the aforesaid
deducted amount of compensation be refunded to him.
9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the
entire record with due care.
10. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that
no such accident has been caused by respondent No.2 and a false FIR has
been registered against him belatedly, therefore, the appellants are not liable
for payment of any compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1848
4 MA-322-2010
11. From perusal of the record of Tribunal below it appears that
injured Chhotu was not examined before the Tribunal below. Vikki Jatav
(AW-2) has been examined as an eyewitness who categorically stated in his
statement that he knows Chhotu. On 2.4.2008 Chhotu was going towards his
house on foot near A.B. Road, at that time, Ramesh Chandra driving the jeep
bearing registration No.MP02-3728 rashly and negligently at a very high
speed came there and hit Chhotu, as a result of which, Chhotu got fracture on
left leg and also sustained injuries in other parts of his body. Driver Ramesh
Chandra brought Chhotu for treatment and got admitted in M.M. Hospital,
Shivpuri and Ramesh Chandra assured the father of Chhotu that he will bear
the expenses of treatment if he should not lodge the report against him but
later on Ramesh Chandra refused to bear the expenses, therefore, Rajaram
has lodged the FIR. Vikki (AW-2) admits that father of Chotu namely
Rajaram is a neighbour and belongs to his caste, therefore, it appears that
Vikki (AW-2) is an interested witness to the claimant.
12. Vikki (AW-2) also deposed that Ramesh Chandra himself brought
Chhotu for treatment and got admitted in hospital, but from perusal of MLC
report Ex.A/3 it appears that injured Chhotu was brought by police Constable
Adesh No.281 of Police Station Kolaras. Name of respondent No.2 Ramesh
Chandra was not mentioned in the MLC report as well as in the requisition
form Ex.A/3, therefore, the above statement of Vikki is not supported by
documentary evidence. If at the time of incident if Vikki Jatav was aware of
the name of driver of the offending vehicle, then why he has not lodged the
FIR against respondent No.2 immediately after the incident. Neither Vikki
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1848
5 MA-322-2010
Jatav (AW-2) nor Rajaram (AW-1), father of the injured lodged the
immediate report against respondent No.2. Although father of victim
Rajaram has been examined before the below Tribunal, but it is clear that he
is not the eyewitness. He has deposed only on the basis of information
gathered from witness Vikki Jatav. Nothing is available on record that
Rajaram and Vikki both of them knows respondent No.2 Ramesh Chandra
prior to incident. No identification parade of the offending vehicle and
accused have been conducted by the police during investigation, therefore, in
absence of material evidence, the identification of the driver of offending
vehicle appears to be very doubtful.
13. From perusal of the FIR Ex/A/1 it appears that date of incident is
2.4.2008 and the FIR has been lodged on 13.6.2008 after lapse of more than
two months and 20 days. No sufficient reason for aforesaid delay has been
proved by the claimant, therefore, period of delay of two and half months for
lodging the FIR appears to be very doubtful.
14. It is also material that respondent No.2 Ramesh Chandra has been
acquitted by JMFC, Koraras, District Shivpuri in Criminal Case
No.531/2008 for the offence under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. From
perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that victim Chhotu categorically
stated before the Criminal Court that he does not know who was the driver of
the offending vehicle and what was registration number of the offending
vehicle. Other witnesses Rahul (PW-3) and Devendra (PW-4) also have not
stated that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.2 at the time
of accident, therefore, acquittal of respondent No.2 in the aforesaid criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1848
6 MA-322-2010
case is very important and acquittal of respondent No.2 also corroborated the
case of appellant that the offending vehicle was not involved in the aforesaid
accident.
15. On the basis of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident has been caused by
respondent No.2 by driving the vehicle No.MP02-3728 rashly and
negligently with a high a speed. The Tribunal below has committed grave
error of law and in absence of the evidence, the appellants cannot be made
responsible for payment of compensation to respondent No.1 and impugned
award deserves to be quashed.
16. On the basis of aforesaid, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed and
impugned award dated 15.7.2009 passed by Tribunal below is hereby
quashed and the appellants are exonerated from their liabilities to pay the
compensation to respondent No.1. The award amount has been deposited by
the appellants before the Tribunal below, therefore, the Tribunal below is
directed to refund the aforesaid entire amount to the appellants and
respondent No.2 is free to apply for refund of the deposited compensation
before the appellants.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
